Discussion: Economy/Government/Population Growth

[ahowl11]

Okay. I want Alavaria to be in control of this part of the mod, since I know nothing about this side of modding. I trust his knowledge and skills. So he will be in charge of implementing all of the economics into the game.

Basically this is what I would like to see for this mod is something similar to ExRM and also maybe look into that mini mod. I want the campaign to be fun but also not so easy that you can have an empire after 20 turns. I don't know, let's just all brainstorm and put all of our ideas into one. This will require a lot of research and a lot of testing.

[Sigma]

I'll leave this here, from the other thread:

I can't remember which mod it was but they had a system set up where building trade and tax oriented buildings like docks, markets, and forums would give you income (with things like markets giving a negative health bonus due to those places being meeting areas where disease could easily spread) but building government projects like barracks, roads, sewers, bathhouses, theaters etc. would give you negative income "bonuses" to represent the cost of running and maintenance so you would have to balance out your buildings and couldn't just click spam the list or you could very well drive your city into negative income. You would have to build your city up economically first before you could build it up militarily, like it should be. It would also require you have a few cities devoted to purely economic purposes if you wanted to have some cities dedicated to building the best troops.

[ahowl11]

Thanks Sigma, I like that idea.

[Alavaria]

Yeah, actually interestingly enough, I've been playing it on and off and, well as it is currently that doesn't happen. I have a fairly good idea why, so it shouldn't be an issue for us.

Can some people who have played for a bit please post an image of your Financials tab? I want to see what the composition of income looks like (it shows Taxes, Farming, Mining, Trade etc). All beta testers who've played for a decent number of turns, thanks

Gotta do some math. Oh, and tell me if the current state of your faction allows it to afford "tons" of soldiers that seems disproportionate.

[b257]

I also think we should take into account units utilized. I think a financial penalty should be given if units like principe's and legionnaires are used since they are better equipped and have better training, thus would require more finances to maintain. However, I feel a less severe financial penalty should be given if units that were historically easier to fund and equip are utilized such as a Thureophoroi or Auxilia as both units were much less of a burden Financially and easier to maintain. Also it would allow for more traits such as "Master Tactician" or "Wins with Little" a trait that can be given to a general who has won multiple battles using less than superior armies and can provide bonus to low tier troops. Just my suggestion

[ahowl11]

That's a very good idea, I wonder how it could be implemented?

[Alavaria]

I also think we should take into account units utilized. I think a financial penalty should be given if units like principe's and legionnaires are used since they are better equipped and have better training, thus would require more finances to maintain. However, I feel a less severe financial penalty should be given if units that were historically easier to fund and equip are utilized such as a Thureophoroi or Auxilia as both units were much less of a burden Financially and easier to maintain.

So, you mean the unit upkeep, unit recruitment cost, or something else, by "finances to maintain"

Also it would allow for more traits such as "Master Tactician" or "Wins with Little" a trait that can be given to a general who has won multiple battles using less than superior armies and can provide bonus to low tier troops. Just my suggestion

I don't think you can get around the way RTW evaluates army strength... can you?

[b257]

unit upkeep and unit recruitment cost, their equipment was pretty expensive and the fact that legionaries were professional troops meant the state had to pay for their training, manufacturing and maintenance of their equipment, supplies, as well as their pay. I'm thinking that not only did it cost a pretty penny to recruit, train and equip the troops it also cost a pretty penny to maintain them long term.

As for the traits, it was just something I threw out, I have no idea how the trait scripting works

[Trelaf the Wise]

Are you thinking of adding different types of government you can install whenever you capture a new region?

[ahowl11]

Yes, we are

[Trelaf the Wise]

Fantastic. That's a must have, imo. How are you planing on doing it?

[ahowl11]

We don't know yet ha, it will be implemented later on

[Alavaria]

Building trees, most likely? And the ability to make advanced military buildings or such depends on which path you take of the branching tree.

[Jubal]

It's very difficult to make building trees branch in RTW, unfortunately.

The obvious exception is temples, whereby you can only build one of each type per settlement. So if you want to make government typed buildings a reality,  make the government buildings the "temples" and the temples regular buildings, would be my first thought (because after all there's no real reason why a settlement should only have one type of temple).

[Bercor]

It's very difficult to make building trees branch in RTW, unfortunately.

The obvious exception is temples, whereby you can only build one of each type per settlement. So if you want to make government typed buildings a reality,  make the government buildings the "temples" and the temples regular buildings, would be my first thought (because after all there's no real reason why a settlement should only have one type of temple).

I believe that's how most mods handle that matter.